36. I am dating a girl with Canadian citizenship.

25. I agree completely. I grew up in an era of expanding civil rights and people working for peace

And the environment. That was after the struggles of the sixties and It was hard to give that up. Now that I am older, other nations would not want me because my skills aren't anything that they can't get anywhere from someone younger. And I don't have the minimum amount of money they demand one to have to get residency for just retirement, even if I had no intentions of being a burden to their safety net.

If I was in my twenties now, I would have already traveled and networked with people abroad, although I always wanted to travel very, very much. Instead, I stayed to take care of older family members and then my own.

If anyone can go, I would advise investigating. For most of us, we are unwanted abroad and now we are unwanted here because we are not rich or related to a family with money.

That's not all there is to this life in the USA, but I sometimes hear this mentioned here, of people making their plans to go. There is nothing wrong with traveling and making new friends and taking advantage of opportunities to live another way.

I say even if one doesn't emigrate, it's still good to make those connections. The rest of us are just stuck and will do our best to keep the country from going to hell and helping each other. And no hard feelings against those who leave.

4. ain't that america these daze

7. Actually, it's a positive sign

A couple generations ago, opposing marriage equality was the default setting. It was understood that it wasn't going to happen. There was no need to demonstrate out in public on the issue, because it hardly existed as an issue. No effort was required to get that position across, because there was no need to even make the argument in the first place.

Now it's a different story. It's a real issue that is discussed daily. The fact that opponents feel the need to get out there shows that the ground is shifting beneath their feet.

19. +!

Yep, they KNOW that support for their twisted POV is crumbling by the day. I remember the protests over Prop. 8 in the Bay Area and LA in the week after the Nov. 2008 election. 4 years later, Californians and heck numerous other Americans have woken up. The tides are turning.

33. You're exactly right about this...

There's an obvious social change going on, and it scares the shit out of them. Conservatives are know to resist and be fearful of change. In a few years, when same-sex maraige is common, they will hardly notice.

I guess what I'm saying is that conservatives are children and need to be treated as such.

17. And all of it fits right into the right wing meme of nany state.

And they will use it to drive the sheeple to their pen.
The left gets played like this all the time...you would think that they would wise up to it but apparently not.
they kill two birds with one stone...increase the business of the chicken place and prove the meme is correct.

Just ask yourself why Bloomberg wanted to ban big drinks...do you think he cared about people's weight of do you think he wanted to give the nanny state meme credibility?...I think the latter.

8. Good for them

He made a business decision, they made a business decision and I have made a business decision. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and where they spend their money. I don't much care for their choices, but it is their choice and I really don't care where they eat or how much.

I just don't think a one day media hyped & driven episode is really worth much note. See what their business looks like in a quarter or 6 months.

26. It was terrible in Asheville, NC----I have been literally sick all day!

I chose the wrong day to go to Bed, Bath and Beyond. It's across the street from Chick-Fil-A and I have never seen so much traffic. I guess I was wrong about Asheville being an oasis from bigotry and hate.

32. One Of My Favorite Quotes...

...from MLK goes something like - “The Arc of the Moral Universe Is Long, but It Bends Toward Justice”

This quote always gives me comfort. It tells me (among other things) that the best the Conservatives (and their ilk) can do is delay the inevitable. As time goes on, Progressive ideas tend to get a foothold even if there are times when they seem to be permanently defeated.

45. I'm not advocating for denying civil rights.

I'm discouraging people from breaking the law. I disagree with what Chick-fil-A stands for, but I think it's a bad idea for people to respond to it in a way that'll get them arrested.

How that could even be construed as saying that I think 'denying civil rights is OK' is beyond me.

There are people who fight for more gun control laws; should we take action against them too? They are fighting to deny someone their rights. It isn't illegal to fight for more gun control laws, just as it isn't illegal to fight to prevent civil unions.

47. Yes, clearly now that I've done your assigned research...

I can see where I agreed that denying people their civil rights is OK.

...oh wait; that doesn't have anything to do with anything that I've said.

If you insist on replying to my post; would it inconvenience you terribly - to read them.

I'm pretty sure that's how it normally works. I post something, YOU READ IT, then you post something as a response to what I posted.

I agree 'there are no second class citizens', but it takes time for the laws of this country to reflect that. It isn't against the law to fight against passage of those laws. It is however against the law to kick the asses of the people who fight against passage of those laws.

While I hope they do eventually pass a law respecting civil unions; I hope they never pass a law making violence against political opponents legal.

50. The 3/5ths compromise dealt with calculating representation

...are you suggesting some people don't get full representation because of their sexual orientation?

It goes over my head because it's a piss poor analogy. Why don't you explain to me how they are equal, or similar even.

The constitution granted only land owners the right to vote. It wasn't until Jackson was elected that some states granted men (and only men) who didn't own land; the right to vote. During the Jackson administration the rest of the other states granted men the right to vote so they wouldn't move to the states that gave non-landowners the right to vote.

I'm not sure why you feel the 3/5ths compromise applies to this situation in any way shape or form. Not only did slaves not have the right to vote; a lot of free people didn't either.

This great nation has a long history of denying people their civil rights; the 3/5ths compromise is not even one of the examples.

53. Actually, it is a PERFECT analogy.

It said that some human beings aren't WORTH as much as others, and therefore don't DESERVE nor are they GUARANTEED the same civil rights as others, EXACTLY as you would have put into law concerning American CITIZENS that love and want to MARRY their chosen partner when it doesn't match up with what religious bigots approve. The EXACT same argument was used by the EXACT same people less than half a century ago to deny inter-racial couples from MARRYING.

Civil unions, my ass. Either you believe in civil rights for ALL or you don't, There is no compromising with bigots, be they homophobes or racist scum. In their hearts, if not the flesh. they are one in the same.

54. Whatever.

Based on your comments you are both:

1) Not reading my comments and
2) Have no understanding of what the 3/5ths compromise was about.

They were only counting the slaves as 3/5ths of a person; the slaves didnt have any civil rights. The northern states didn't want to count them at all (they were just slaves) the compromise was that they would only partially count them (3/5ths). It wasn't about civil rights at all.

The fight for inter-racial marriage is a good analogy, because people were being denied their civil rights and bigoted people were behind it. The people behind it were wrong; just as the people who oppose civil unions today are wrong.

I still don't advocate for violence against the bigots or advocate for denying the bigots their civil rights. That was my position in the beginning, and my position has not changed.

56. I never claimed that you had.

Where our discussion took off was that I was opposed to violating the civil rights of the restaurant owners. I just lumped advocating violence toward them as something else I don't support.

I never claimed that you advocated violence toward them.

I think if you were to read back through our discussion; you'd find that my position isn't all that different from yours.

I haven't eaten at Chick-fil-A because of their anti-civil union position, but I disagree with 'special' laws to prevent them from going into cities.

I expect that if we support 'special' laws they are just as likely to use them against a business that is pro-civil union in a community that is opposed to civil unions. I think that's the wrong approach to dealing with them.

I believe that's a violation of their rights and again, two wrongs don't make a right.

58. If you mean ...

.. civil unions for all and marriage for none, then we are in agreement, but if you don't understand when such a clause only applies to "teh gays" then you really are just blinded to your own prejudice. Marriage for 'traditional' (hetero only), civil union for "teh gays" is nothing more than the homophobes version of separate but equal. It is the heart and soul of discrimination. That sir is wrong, dead fucking wrong. Frankly there is nothing you can say to change that harsh fact.

61. I'm for civil unions for whatever reason...

...people want to have civil unions.

I feel like we are up against insurance companies and the IRS, and any other entity that benefits from making people stand alone against them.

I don't care if it's homosexual, heterosexual, non-sexual... If two people benefit from one person staying at home, survivor benefits, or having the right to visit their loved one in a hospital, or any of the other multitude of advantages that married couples benefit from; it should be their right. As far as I'm concerned they don't even have to be in love. It's probably best if the get along, but that's their business.

I don't think cities should keep out businesses because of their political views (or their contributions). I dont like the path that takes us down. I also think that we shouldn't be mean to their employees or threaten them with physical harm.

I think we should be as nice to them as we can stand to be. Sinking to their level; makes us look just as bad as they do.

64. Agian..

... where have I advocated the crap you just talked about? More importantly, why the fuck do you keep tossing it at me?

Of course, you were so busy with your red herrings you didn't address the main point I was making. I'm not surprised. I'm familiar with those tactics and realize that an honest discussion isn't possible with you, so I am done trying. Bye.

67. So what?

The bottom line is they regulated the types of businesses that can operate there. So are you saying it's okay to do it on the grounds that it's bad for you, but not based on bigotry? And if so, why not? Could you not make an argument that bigotry is bad for us also?

68. They regulated the types of business...

...not the types of business owners. However, I don't think the 'Fast Food Ban' law will stand either (as I said).

You could certainly make an argument that bigotry is bad for us. If the business is behaving in a bigoted manner? Is there evidence that the business owners are? The corporate management have bigoted attitudes toward certain people, but as far as I know they aren't discriminating in the business place.

The CEO is making statements about his belief system and is making political donations toward politicians who support his position. These are his personal beliefs and I think in the end it is probably going to destroy (or at minimum damage) the company.

I don't eat at Chick-fil-A in solidarity with the people who are being targeted. I believe boycotting the franchises is an appropriate response to his attitude, just as I intend to boycott all businesses that financially support groups that I don't agree with.

I don't support limiting the rights of the business owners in this case for two reasons.

1) If successful; there is precedent that certain businesses can be kept out of cities because of political pressure.
2) If unsuccessful; (the more likely scenario) everyone is going to be pissed off because the bigots won. It will be framed as a victory for bigotry. When, if fact, it is a victory for the rights of businesses.

I'm not opposed to punishing the bigoted CEO; but let's punish him in the marketplace, and not get our asses kicked in the court system. If they can ban an 'anti-civil union' business owner; then they can ban a 'muslim' business owner for being anti-christian etc.

71. Name me one instance where that's happened

I can name you a whole bunch of instances where gays have been denied jobs, benefits, and other things because of who they are. But can you actually name me one of these times where these supposedly oppressed Christians have been denied their rights because of who they are?

72. Suddenly we're talking about jobs.

I was talking about banning businesses. Are you tired of talking about that?

Is that what Chick-fil-A is doing? Are they denying jobs to people based on their sexual orientation?

I hadn't heard that. If they are; should we be able to tell businesses who they can and can't hire? Is that where we're going with this?

Why is it not good enough for me to just boycott them for their discriminatory attitude?

As far as banning religions (which was what I was talking about; not Christians). It seems they were trying to keep a mosque out of New York because of its proximity to the world trade center; do you support keeping them out?

73. No, what we're talking about is a group of people that have faced discrimination

violence, hatred, and bigotry of the worst kind, and are fighting back. Now show me an instance in the last twenty or thirty years where Christians have faced that, and I'll be more worried about their businesses getting banned. Until then, I have no problem telling Chick-fil-A to take a hike. My city council recently did just that by denying them permission to open a store here, and I am fully supporting of that. If you want to mourn for the poor oppressed victims of Chick-fil-A and the clogged arteries that will never be, go ahead, your choice.

Me? I'm perfectly happy to hold businesses accountable for the words and actions of their CEO's when they participate in bigotry and hatred.

74. You can support whatever you want.

Why you insist on bringing Christian oppression (or the lack thereof) into the discussion is beyond me.

If your city has banned Chick-fil-A and you're happy about that; it is really nothing to me.

The point that I'm trying to make is that when the ACLU comes in and the city's law is overturned; don't take it as a victory for bigotry.

I remember when the ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh (someone I absolutely despise). I was glad to see it because even though I'd rather see him in prison; we can't go down the path of violating people's rights just because we don't like what they say.

That's really all I'm trying to say here; I support LGBT rights, marriages etc. I don't support violating other peoples rights just to punish them for having a bad attitude toward other people.

In a few years same sex marriage will be law, and Chick-fil-A probably won't exist. It won't be because his franchises were banned from cities; it will be because the CEO had an attitude that was not a reflection of the times, and people spoke with their pocketbook.

66. Here:

"Arcata has been notably progressive in its political makeup, and was the first city in the United States to elect a majority of its city council members from the Green Party. As a result of the progressive majority, Arcata capped the number of chain restaurants allowed in the city. Arcata was also the first municipality to ban the growth of any type of Genetically Modified Organism within city limits, with exceptions for research and educational purposes."

52. See, they have First Amendment Rights!!!!!

Of course, if we--or any caring, thinking sentient Mayor--dares to say "You bastards SUCK! You're hateful, miserable, mean and rotten, and we URGE you to push off and go sell your hate elsewhere!" that's somehow impinging on THEIR rights....

....while completely ignoring OURS.

"Don't say anything against them, you might get sued!"

"Oh, you shouldn't boycott them--that will only embolden them ..." (tell that to MLK